Potential for Attorney Input Into Confidentiality Agreement Insufficient to Warrant Attorney-Client Protection

The privilege special master recommended rejecting defendants’ assertion of privilege over an unsigned confidentiality agreement intended for execution between defendants. “⁠[The agreement was] to be used in connection with a planned relationship wherein [one defendant] would grant [another] access to confidential information of [the defendant]. The terms of the confidentiality agreement appear fairly standard. The privilege log identifies [one individual] as the ‘Author’ and the supplemental personnel roster . . . identifies her as ‘Executive Paralegal’ at [the defendant]. Although it is reasonable to expect that an attorney may have been involved at some point in the production of the agreement, none is identified or reflected by what is before the Privilege Master and it is certainly possible that an Executive Paralegal was entrusted with the task of drafting on her own a confidentiality agreement which does not appear tailored to the circumstances and may well represent a standard format.”

In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, 2-13-cv-20000 (ALND 2018-05-11, Order)

2018-05-15T12:10:03+00:00May 15th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|